Slimey Sal. The writing style, like Dense O'Leary's, is (and should be) inimitable.

Note the fluffing up of credentials -

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). 3 degrees in scientific disciplines Present during an interview by prestigious journalfor a major story

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

Well, it's not so far off what he could have written. I bet he believes that's what happened. It's no wonder Sal and his Ilk don't do research - they know the answer before they even start. If he knew the simulations were "false" before any research at the "lab", presumably they are still false for the same reasons now and can be proven so easily by Sal by sharing how he knows. Presuming he indeed said those words.

And anyway, how could Sal resist the glare of the camera, it's in his blood. Shameless self publicist. A chance to be on the big screen? Sal would sell his soul. And the devil would come off the worst there.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.

Conspiracy and delusions of grandeur in a single sentence. If this isn't Sal, it's a very gifted mimic.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Expelled For Promoting IDAdded by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.

Expelled from Uncommon DescentAdded by: James, on 2007-11-01 20:02:19Today I was expelled from the Uncommon Descent blog. All I was trying to do was talk about intelligent design in an intelligent way. I'm a Christian and a religion professor. Can you believe the sort of censorship this site is engaging in?

Expelled For Promoting IDAdded by: Chris, on 2007-11-01 18:15:52Like any Raelian I recognize that the human race is the product of the Intelligent Designers who igners who we have been in contact with for decades. Everytime I tried to get the intelligent design promoters (William Dembski) and others at www.uncommondescent.com to at least consider the Intelligent Designer hwas discovered years ago I was ridiculed. They never once asked me for evidence or even considered the evidence. They ended up banning me and ALL my comments from their blog. Science is about discovery and evidence, no just towing the intelligent design party line.

More exciting news regarding Ben Stein and EXPELLED ~ No Intelligence Allowed.He's on NATIONAL NEWS TODAY.Please tune in to The Glen Beck Television Program TODAY, Tuesday, November 13th at 3:15pm (EST). Please see details below.

When I began fighting evolutionism as a public school teacher, a powerful former Board of Education member tried to stir up the community against me. She made false claims to a Jewish Professor whose daughter was in my class. She secretly went to my principal in an attempt to get me fired.

I remember during my high school biology class, being made to answer questions that had no correct answer. Here's how the question would go: What is the age of the earth? A) 110 million years B) 21 million years C) 2.4 billion years D) 65 billion years

So what would I put for my answer? I would circle the answer they wanted and then write in the margin something like: You think it is this answer, but I do not agree with that. The correct answer is not displayed here.

She's right though - the correct answer is not displayed here.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Speaking of martyrs to the cause, what ever happened to Bryan Leonard, the high school science teacher who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt while in a Ph.D. program at, I think, Ohio State. His dissertation defense was held up because his defense committee was improperly constructed (plus they were all creationist sympathizers) and because he failed to get proper approval for using human subjects.

It's not terribly interesting, but I thought Stein's prattle on Glenn Beck's program is worth a few quotes and a link:

Quote

STEIN: Well this was for a documentary which as you say is called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." We were studying what our kids were taught about evolution, what they were taught about how life originated.

What we found is that if you question evolution, you have a good chance of losing tenure. You have a good chance of getting fired, losing a grant, you`re out of there.

And yet evolution and Darwinism do not explain an awful lot about life. Darwin said nothing about how life originated and Darwin had no idea how complicated the cell was. Darwin was never able to point to any clear evidence of any species that originated by evolution and there hasn`t been much progress in Darwinism since then. But we found that if you even question the established church of Darwinism, bang, you`re gone.

Uh, yeah Ben, who the hell lost tenure?

Damn, Darwin didn't explain the origin of life? What did he think he was doing, explaining evolution, or something?

Darwin didn't point to any clear evidence of species appearing by evolution, of course, since the finches look like they were designed by engineers. Not much progress in "Darwinism," either, or at least no progress in teaching Stein anything.

Quote

BECK: What about first cause or intelligent?

STEIN: Well, first cause is not -- it`s lightning striking a mud puddle. See, this is what the evolutionists say and by the way, they may be right. I`m not a scientist, they could be right. Evolutionists struck a mud puddle and out of that mud puddle came a fully-equipped Boeing 747.

Because a human cell, or plant cell or frog cell has hundreds of thousands of very complicated, moving parts all of which have to work together in exact synchronization with each other to build the cell, repair the cell and reproduce the cell.

Darwin thought it was just Jello inside the cell. No, very complicated. How that happened by lightning striking a mud puddle is a very good question. And if you ask that question, you better start looking for another job or have rich parents or something.

I think Stein's running off of old Frankenstein movies there. At least the mud puddle differs somewhat, but the lightning bolt is still there.

Bizarre, though, that Darwin thought lightning in a mud puddle made a jello-filled cell. Is this a new design process for making gelatinous desserts?

Anyway, that's most of what Stein said that he no doubt considers to be substantive about evolution on the Beck show. But here's the link for anyone wanting context (it's maybe around 2/3 of the way down):

No, of course not, when you understand he's not interested in truth, but rather fighting the "culture war" in K-12 schools, hoping to blunt or even stop the teaching of science to kids in public schools.

Gonzalez said he feels "not everything is on the up and up; not everything is kosher," and he felt pressure from inside the department "even before the petition was circulated in 2005, and all the more so after the petition." Concerning the e-mails, he said he was "surprised about what people were saying behind my back."

"Absolutely, I can say in unequivocal terms, that ID was a factor [for denying tenure]," Gonzalez said. "I guess I was being naive. I thought I was being judged on my full record."

John R. Clem, senior physicist at Ames Laboratory, wrote in 2005 that he was concerned about the possible creation of a "hostile work environment" by circulating an official statement and wanted also to "withdraw [his] name from any public statement."

Clem wrote that Gonzalez's statements were an "embarrassment" to the department and wished to instill in other members that Gonzalez's statements were just the "highly publicized views of one untenured member" of the faculty.

"I feel that publication of such a statement might become the most important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the person whose scientific credibility we should attempt to discredit," Clem wrote. "I think the best policy is just grin and bear it for the next couple of years."

Clem said he feels the e-mails being brought to light by the Discovery Institute are misrepresentations of the full story, as they are "on a fishing expedition to raise publicity for their cause" by "extracting the most negative comments" made by faculty to the press, thus facilitating their case against Iowa State.

"We had a very delicate situation [at the time], and we tried to handle it as delicately as possible," Clem said. "[The Discovery Institute] still came at us with guns blazing. It didn't do any good."

Clem said the decision to deny tenure to Gonzalez was "absolutely not" based on ID.

Prof. Clem, one can't be too surprised that the Discovery Institute went with their primary competency.

Upon actually reviewing the emails in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position.

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:

Quote

11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by members of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, works directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.

This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:

Quote

Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.

All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Upon actually reviewing the emails in question, I don't think they represent a threat to ISU's decision on Gonzalez. Indeed, there are passages that work powerfully against the DI's position:

Examples include Steve Kawaler's prescient remarks:

Quote

11/21/05:

Simply put, next year's tenure review will be very closely scrutinized by the public and the press - and we must do whatever we can to make it a fair process. An unprecedented step such as a statement, signed by memores of the department doing the tenure review that the science being done by the candidate is no good, wors directly against our need to ensure, and display, a fair tenure review.

11/22/05:

Believe me I understand the frustration batted about here. But we should expect that the DI (or whoever comes to Guillermo's aid) will be subpoenaing our records and anything else they can get (including copies of the e-mails that are being exchanged between all of us.). So, with that in mind, keeping the process as fair as possible should be utmost.

This earlier sympathetic remark is also interesting. From Anne Willson on 2/17/04:

Quote

Yes, I am aware of this [Gonzalez' intention to publish P.P.] and not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past the tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enough to be willing to take the risk.

All of the exchange concerns the dilemma that Gonzalez created for himself, and for his faculty, by being so public with his advocacy of ID at the moment that his tenure review was approaching. Prominent is concern over damage to faculty recruitment that his actions had created, and how to limit that damage (including consideration of a public statement). Gonzalez himself rendered his ID advocacy impossible to ignore; as Wes notes above he referenced P.P. in his tenure dossier, and department faculty also grappled in this exchange with the fact that he made taped public presentations in which he argued that ID should be regarded as sound science, placing his ID advocacy squarely in the domain of their assessment of his quality as a scientist. As indicated above, also prominent among the concerns discussed was the need to preserve a tenure review that was fair to Gonzalez, as well as the desire to avoid creating a work environment that was hostile to him. As above, he was cautioned that it was unwise of him to create those problems at that time, but he went forward anyway.

I'm working on a catchy aphorism that concerns planting stuff that one later harvests, but can't quite get it right.

Very interesting. I can't help but wish the pdf was more complete, but the interdepartmental politics make a lot more sense now.

It's also kind of funny how a number of evidently sympathetic faculty, seeing the oncoming train that was the inevitable Gonzalez lawsuit, voiced worries about lawsuits that are being taken as justification for those lawsuits.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow